NFL General - Steelers Forum

[43M]

7 hours ago, jebrick said:

They drafted a very raw guy in the 3rd round.  He needs a year to redshirt.

I get that.    All I'm saying is its not like Hawkins ever proved.... Anything. 

[jebrick]

No but Hubbard took 2 years to show something.  He was so horrible his first year I was stunned that he was kept.

[Dcash4]

13 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

I get that.    All I'm saying is its not like Hawkins ever proved.... Anything. 

This is a bit unfair to say. He is going into his third year, missed his entire rookie season due to injury, and was 4th in line last year to get any snaps in practice -- that's not a ton of opportunity to get a chance to prove anything. It is true he has not really proved anything to this point, but there is a difference between having the chances to do so and failing vs not having the opportunity at all. He would be much closer to the latter in this case. 

This next comment isn't directed at you 43, but just a continuation on my thought process with the above from what I have seen from some fans.  When did we stop even considering that development and progression was a thing? Fans seem to have already made the assumption of the entire careers of that whole class will be. Burns, Davis, Hargrave, Hawkins, even Matakevich are all guys who fans were already replaced completely on the roster. I am not saying they don't have their faults or flaws, but at what point do we think that a 22/23 year old cannot grow into the game or improve to reach a potential? The mental side has been the toughest part (outside of Davis's tackling -- which is still a coachable thing) for all of them and that's reasonably the part that years of experience in the league and coaching helps to develop.

Burns turned 23 May 1....that's still incredibly young, yet there were mock drafts talking about replacing him with a rookie and letting it be Haden, Sutton, and rookie. Throwing away that when Burns was drafted it was mentioned he might need to red-shirt, but because he was force into action and played decently as a rookie, his expectation level raised and he was meant to be a finished product in year 2. I just haven't been able to understand that logic. 

We have had more and more rookie/first year players have to create an impact in recent years and I feel that the reliance on youth has caused some form of unjust expectations on their development. We expect immediate results and finished players, when the chances of that realistically happening are slim. Even this year, I understand the cry of defensive players through the draft (I shared that feeling), but realistically our defense will be better overall with the improvement of 2nd and 3rd year players developmentally than with late 2nd and 3rd round rookie talent. That isn't to say that drafted players could not have been to our benefit, but they were not going to turn us from a bottom half defense to a top 3 quality one miraculously. Even inside of that, we have seen the flaws in the mental side of the game with our young guys...and then expect YOUNGER guys to come in and be the fix when that stills leaves you greatly susceptible to the same problems. 

This could just be me -- because I do believe that its been the veteran leadership and coaching that has failed the young players, not their talent. Burns and Davis specifically. I think the losses of Mike Mitchell, Willie Gay, and Carnell Lake are greater than can be imagined and that the additions of Burnett and Bradley will help the progression of the young guys. To me, this is the year you get the chance to decide who is and who is not an NFL quality player from that class. The third year everything should slow down, your depth of knowledge should be much greater, and you should finally have the chance to use your skills more freely. 

 

[43M]

3 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

This is a bit unfair to say. He is going into his third year, missed his entire rookie season due to injury, and was 4th in line last year to get any snaps in practice -- that's not a ton of opportunity to get a chance to prove anything. It is true he has not really proved anything to this point, but there is a difference between having the chances to do so and failing vs not having the opportunity at all. He would be much closer to the latter in this case. 

This next comment isn't directed at you 43, but just a continuation on my thought process with the above from what I have seen from some fans.  When did we stop even considering that development and progression was a thing

Its not unfair at all.   Thats just reality.     I get that there is a difference between NOT proving anything and NOT BEING ABLE to prove anything, but the fact remains, he still hasnt shown much of anything.  

And no one stopped considering that development and progression is a thing.   In fact, I even mentioned it earlier.     However, you also cant assume it either.   Alot of players DON'T progress.    I wished Hawkins was healthy, but Im not going to lose sleep over it like we lost an important piece. 

[Dcash4]

3 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Its not unfair at all.   Thats just reality.     I get that there is a difference between NOT proving anything and NOT BEING ABLE to prove anything, but the fact remains, he still hasnt shown much of anything.  

And no one stopped considering that development and progression is a thing.   In fact, I even mentioned it earlier.     However, you also cant assume it either.   Alot of players DON'T progress.    I wished Hawkins was healthy, but Im not going to lose sleep over it like we lost an important piece. 

The reality of the NFL? Sure. But as a fan speaking of a player they have barely seen to say he has or has not proved anything...yes it is unfair to form a definitive opinion on him. You have said that you hoped he could have developed, but you have already labeled him a JAG at his very best. That's a player that has 48 NFL snaps. To define his career as an outsider with such limited resources is unfair. I do now know how much 3rd string OT game tape you watch or how heavily you scrutinize the 4th preseason game, but even with those available to see -- what is the definition of proving anything?

Defining a player in his situation and at his position because he hasn't to this point proven anything...I just dont understand that. I would need to know what the expectations of "proof" would be and how a 3rd string guy in a league that focuses on the first string attains it. 

[43M]

2 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

The reality of the NFL? Sure. But as a fan speaking of a player they have barely seen to say he has or has not proved anything...yes it is unfair to form a definitive opinion on him. You have said that you hoped he could have developed, but you have already labeled him a JAG at his very best. That's a player that has 48 NFL snaps. To define his career as an outsider with such limited resources is unfair. I do now know how much 3rd string OT game tape you watch or how heavily you scrutinize the 4th preseason game, but even with those available to see -- what is the definition of proving anything?

Defining a player in his situation and at his position because he hasn't to this point proven anything...I just dont understand that. I would need to know what the expectations of "proof" would be and how a 3rd string guy in a league that focuses on the first string attains it. 

 so I'm supposed to assume he's going to be a superstar instead of what he's actually shown? No, I'm labeling based on what he is actually proven. That's more than fair. The reason why he hasn't proven more is irrelevant. To this point, he hasn't proven to be anything more than just another replaceable player. if you can prove me wrong on that point, by all means...

[Dcash4]

46 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

 so I'm supposed to assume he's going to be a superstar instead of what he's actually shown? No, I'm labeling based on what he is actually proven. That's more than fair. The reason why he hasn't proven more is irrelevant. To this point, he hasn't proven to be anything more than just another replaceable player. if you can prove me wrong on that point, by all means..

 

By all means, tell me what "proving it" entails and then let me know how you have come to that conclusion. I'm not the one making a definitive statement on a player we have barely seen. I'm saying we shouldn't assume anything at all.

His is an unspectacular position that doesn't have sparkly statistics to cherry pick successes and failures. His opportunities to "prove" anything have come in late preseason action (which no one watches), in sporadic injury replacement action, and third tackle sets -- at a position no one pays attention to. So honestly, what proof are you looking for? What does good look like? 

Your asking me to prove something that I can't even define. Can you even describe what he has or has not shown in terms of football? Is he not tough enough? Does he not give effort? Is his pass blocking suspect? Does he not wall of the back side? Can he not get to the second level? Doesn't pass off on stunts adequately? Doesn't grasp the NFL? Can't deal with the speed? 

Or is it just that he hasn't proven anything to you and that's then be all end all? 

 

[Chieferific]

9 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

By all means, tell me what "proving it" entails and then let me know how you have come to that conclusion. I'm not the one making a definitive statement on a player we have barely seen. I'm saying we shouldn't assume anything at all.

His is an unspectacular position that doesn't have sparkly statistics to cherry pick successes and failures. His opportunities to "prove" anything have come in late preseason action (which no one watches), in sporadic injury replacement action, and third tackle sets -- at a position no one pays attention to. So honestly, what proof are you looking for? What does good look like? 

Your asking me to prove something that I can't even define. Can you even describe what he has or has not shown in terms of football? Is he not tough enough? Does he not give effort? Is his pass blocking suspect? Does he not wall of the back side? Can he not get to the second level? Doesn't pass off on stunts adequately? Doesn't grasp the NFL? Can't deal with the speed? 

Or is it just that he hasn't proven anything to you and that's then be all end all? 

 

Not to "Butt in" but isn't the simple fact that he hasn't hardly had any playing time due to injury, being a Rookie, buried on the depth chart...etc. show that he's easily replaceable this year? We're not talking about replacing what he could be. We're replacing what he's been and that is a player that doesn't see the field much and has contributed next to nothing. I was excited about drafting this guy. He seemed to have potential (and still may) but what he has provided THUS FAR is easily replaced. 

[Dcash4]

5 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

Not to "Butt in" but isn't the simple fact that he hasn't hardly had any playing time due to injury, being a Rookie, buried on the depth chart...etc. show that he's easily replaceable this year? We're not talking about replacing what he could be. We're replacing what he's been and that is a player that doesn't see the field much and has contributed next to nothing. I was excited about drafting this guy. He seemed to have potential (and still may) but what he has provided THUS FAR is easily replaced. 

Sure - I can live with that. I haven't been trying to push a narrative of Hawkins being some form of irreplaceable value anyway. But to say he is at best a JAG or to use the term "proving" as a description for his play,  i do not understand. 

But your right, chief - it's hard to miss what you haven't really had. And I won't argue that. 

[43M]

36 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

By all means, tell me what "proving it" entails and then let me know how you have come to that conclusion. I'm not the one making a definitive statement on a player we have barely seen. I'm saying we shouldn't assume anything at all.

His is an unspectacular position that doesn't have sparkly statistics to cherry pick successes and failures. His opportunities to "prove" anything have come in late preseason action (which no one watches), in sporadic injury replacement action, and third tackle sets -- at a position no one pays attention to. So honestly, what proof are you looking for? What does good look like? 

Your asking me to prove something that I can't even define. Can you even describe what he has or has not shown in terms of football? Is he not tough enough? Does he not give effort? Is his pass blocking suspect? Does he not wall of the back side? Can he not get to the second level? Doesn't pass off on stunts adequately? Doesn't grasp the NFL? Can't deal with the speed? 

Or is it just that he hasn't proven anything to you and that's then be all end all? 

 

The only "definitive" thing I have said is that he hasnt proven much of anything, and you seem like you cant accept that fact.   And yes, thats a fact.        You keep on arguing that he hasnt had the opportunity to prove how good he is, and thats largely irrelevant.     Two of his 3 years will have been spent on IR, and last year he didnt show enough to get more opportunities.

My assessment is based on "What IS".

Your assessment is based on "What COULD BE".

And sorry, but what IS is all that actually matters.

I never said he COULDNT be good....but if he cant stay healthy or earn more opportunities, it doesnt matter.

[Dcash4]

1 hour ago, FourThreeMafia said:

The only "definitive" thing I have said is that he hasnt proven much of anything, and you seem like you cant accept that fact

I can accept it... if you define it. I have never claimed anything about Hawkins - other than you can't make an accurate assessment at this point. The fact being that that's also why he may not have a job on this team next year is not my point. Injuries are causing missed opportunity. That's tough luck. 

Using "he hasn't proved anything" is an empty statement if there is no substance of what IT is that needs to be proved. THAT is my point. What can a guy with limited opportunity do TO PROVE himself, and then how can he show case that to YOU as someone I'm guessing isn't going over practice tape or preseason with a fine tooth comb looking for what The OTs are or are not doing. 

1 hour ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Your assessment is based on "What COULD BE".

I'd honestly like to see where I made an assessment of this player. 

I have already agreed with the assessment that we are no worse off without him and his incoming replacement, because of his lack of current impact. I'm asking you to define what "prove" means when you are using that as your argument like it's some form of a black and white answer. If "prove" is what you wanted...then what is "prove"? 

[warfelg]

Former OT Mike Adams has lost 68 pounds is looking to come back as a TE:

https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2018/06/93504/mike-adams-attempting-nfl-comeback-at-tight-end

[August4th]

 

[Chieferific]

Any chance the Steelers saw this coming? Whether just an inkling or having specific info? Or did they just get "lucky"? I know Posters have their own feeling in regards to the rule but whether you agree with the rule or not, you must abide by it or face serious consequences. I'll NEVER understand how a player can end up here. 

[VigilantZombie]

2 hours ago, Chieferific said:

Any chance the Steelers saw this coming? Whether just an inkling or having specific info? Or did they just get "lucky"? I know Posters have their own feeling in regards to the rule but whether you agree with the rule or not, you must abide by it or face serious consequences. I'll NEVER understand how a player can end up here. 

Very possible they saw this coming. But the trade had logic when you consider he was a marginal contributor and wasnt going to resign. If it was luck its pretty ironic.